I had a post all set to go for when I returned on Sunday night, but when I arrived home, I saw that my copy of Understanding by Design had finally arrived in my absence. I thought it would be good to at least peruse it and try to incorporate it into my ideas a bit. I wish I hadn’t.
Maybe it is because I have never taught a class and have no idea what to really expect in a classroom. Maybe it is because when I conceptualize teaching and learning it is at the university level. Maybe it is because I have never given much thought to how I or others learn. Or maybe I am just dumb. Somehow this book just seems to move in circles to me, and while I think I gather the gist of what the authors are trying to convey, they seem to be proposing to accomplish precisely what they seek to dismantle.
The largest problem I see with Understanding by Design is the authors’ emphasis on proposing an ambiguous “understanding” as the end goal around which a course should be determined. Some of their advice in this regard is pragmatic and sensible. Obviously, a course that hopes to improve students’ understanding of the larger concepts of a topic can be planned around these goals. However, this seems to leave less room for individuality in the understanding process (something which seems to imply uniqueness) as well as a reduction in the benefits of the learning process.
Any of us studying history have encountered multiple interpretations of different historical events. Usually we have a favorite, but rarely is a singular study marked as the most correct or close to “the truth.” Post-modern ideology has caused us to closely examine these interpretations and we often find that they are as much informed by the historians time, place, politics, etc. as they are by the events they study. The same holds true for the ones we choose to espouse or dismiss and the “big ideas” we choose to take away from them. In this regard the design aspects proposed by the authors seem helpful, i.e. we can be aware of how our own predilections can inform the “understanding” we hope students gain. However, the authors do not seem to be proposing this, but rather ignore the prospect that in working toward a singular understanding, individual paths might be missed and dialogue broken.
Despite their belief that their methods can encourage discussion, it seems possible they might in fact hinder dialogue. Often unintended, but beneficial, results seem possible during a collaborative learning process in which students can help determine “the understanding” of the material rather than the material predefining a few paths which arrive at the same conclusions. Surely the educator has a strong responsibility to provide a reasonable sense of validity. However, attempting to guide students through content to proper “understanding” closes the door for students to move beyond the traditional and accepted. Though the authors specifically seek to address the problems that teaching to content requirements causes, this method seems to logically end more deeply mired in standards than a strictly content-based methodology. They seem to back themselves into the corner they try to avoid.
For example, the use of rubrics offers little room in the assessment phase for students to learn and understand beyond the assignment. A student might exceed expectations or find an alternate solution or understanding, often engaging in precisely the kind of critical thought educators hope for, but within the constraints of the goals of the assignment, as indicated by the rubric, have failed to meet the requirements. This seems problematic, and emphasizes the final result rather than the process of learning.
I hope I have read too much into this text and their is more utility than I have found–I look forward to discussing this!